Why people of Faith and Believers do not continue to Debate. Part 2

At an earlier debate it was intimated by Jar that we of faith finally give up debating because according to him we simply can't hang. As I demonstrated in my thread on design, that is simply not the case, his accusation is unwarrented.
While I don't see the need to maintain constant forever debate, I think there are two general topics that demonstrate that at a certain point no further discussion is necessary because the Humanists cannot grasp his error in these basic topics
Those being, the design argument and the question of morality.
So we simply step aside knowing this problemIOWS I've never really seen the need to involve myself in interpretations of scripture with someone that doesn't even believe it to be the Word of God, unless those scriptures relate to those 2 topics and say a person wants to attack the character of God in general. Then maybe further investigation and discussion is warrentedNow don't misunderstand me, I would encourage and skeptic to read it, because it's the Word that converts men's hearts, not arguments. For instance read the book of John, the Gospel and listen to the words and magnificent claims by Jesus himself
But someone says, Jesus didn't say those things, someone else did in his name.
Then we are back to square one , correct?But as in any endeavor, discussions and argumentation need to have fundamental principles. That, I purpose to demonstrate in and on the morality question. By doing this we can demonstrate truth of our position and at the same time, show that believers are not, indeed afraid of any confrontations, we welcome it. It's simply that, at least on this topic the Secular fundamental Humanist is at a sad disadvantage.But in an ironic kind of way, I believe these two topics should be the very close limits of to much discusssion with a non-believerJust finished watching the Craig-Harris debate again, on this topic. While I'll admit Harris has a certain eloquence and Craig is a masterful Theologian, philosopher and apologist, there are too many things left unsaid in that short of time.Harris doesn't understand basic rules of argumentation, namely establishing fundamental principles before moving on to other points or examples. He represents his position as if he's actually given a reason for having a moralitySo I purpose, with Percival's high and mighty, god like permission, to discuss the proposition, that notwithstanding Harris contention, that the idea that to avoid the maximum amount of misery for all individuals as a moral, does not and cannot establish any kind of morality for an Atheist or Secular Fundamental Humanist, or nonbeliever.There are far to many fundamental problems, for the Atheist, in a logical, realistic manner, from the standpoint of reality, before he even formulates a so-called ethic.Yes I am aware of the obvious irorny, of continuing discussions while pointing out why, at the same time, we do not stick around to continue debating, before anyone points that out.. hahaAnd finally, I am aware that most of the debaters here do not have either the skills or stamina to keep up with my line of reasoning and critical thinking skills, but give it a try anywayWhat do you say Percival, Ole boyDawn Bertot

Yes sir your highness
I will clarify that here in a bit
Thanks again

As per Percy's request I will clarify what I think the specifics of the thread need to involve
Before however, I would encourage any and all to watch or rewatch the debate, specifically to point out some specific points, that anyone thinks I might have missed and any questions they would like to develope in that context.Simply put I would say the Atheist has no rational or logical way to formulate an actual moral or ethic, from a reality standpoint. While it's possible for him or her to imagine or perceive such a thing, there is simply no way in reality this is possible. I can easily developed that pointI don't mean to imply here that Dr Craig failed to point this out or very capably demonstrated this point. But I don't think that Dr Craig was specific enough with the questions process of the debate twords Dr Harris, or forced him to deal with the core question. This allowed Dr Harris run wildly all over the "Landscape" in every direction, without actually providing any evidence for his contention that the first and best argument he has for believing that an Atheist has morals. Or that it is our duty and moral obligation to avoid our or anybody else's maximum misery, and that this is actually an ethic or objective moralityIn the first place, this is not a moral it's an Instinct, any animal can avoid pain or misery. It takes no thinking process. Secondly, since according to the Naturalistic proposition, much animal life existed before the human brain, it would follow that pain or misery and it's avoidance was not invented as a moral by the human mind, therefore not an actual moral or ethic. The lion and Bear do not share your opinion,when they are on the giving end of misery
We only discovered that it's a thing to avoid as well, for natural reasons, not ethical ones.Thirdly, since I can get very different responses from human minds as to what constitutes a moral or immoral act, it should be immediately evident that there is no way to establish OBJECTIVELY, from a Naturalistic standpoint, what is in REALITY morally real.
Therefore, it is logically impossible for an actual ethic or moral to exist from the Atheistic standpoint, in RealityI'm of course not contending here for what works best, or what works best for a group, but some objective standard that is outside human perception. The best you can have is some vague contrivance by a thing called the human brain called this or that, in the form of moralsFor these initial reasons, more to follow, I would suggest and press the Atheist or SFH, to give a valid argument and reason, from a standpoint of reality, why a new ACTUAL morality exists, that is objective.IOWs, it's pointless to discuss the moral landscape, when Mr Harris can't even get out of the first problemWe're I debating Mr. Harris I would not let him out of this dilemma and would ask him questions like this,Of the following which is an objectively immoral, unethical, right or wrong act and how did you arrive at these conclusions.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski
The extermination of the Cannanites, by Jehovah
And or the extermination of a colony of mice or rats by a humanSince all life is equal and all things are actually equal on our humanistic little world,what chance does an Atheist have in demonstrating any hope an actual ethic or moralThis should get us startedDawn Bertot

I would choose Is it Science or
Faith and belief
Because of course u know that in reality there is no distinction between these two things or catergories
But I'll let u decide, it matters not to me
Thanks for your approval

Okay how about in Faith and belief forum

Yes, thank you sir, you are of course correct on most of your observations, except for the title. Of course Atheist can explain morals, they simply have no rational foundation for having any, given their strictly Naturalistic positionYes I can alter the title and incorporate in the conversation, the logical empasses we Theist and Atheist arrive at often, which can cause a lack of participation on our partI mentioned Dr William Lane Craig and Dr Samuel Harris debate as a starting point, for the purpose of a foundation reference on this topic. And to mention that Dr Craig was way to easy on Dr Harris fundamental problem. More could have been done, if more time were avaliableSecular Fundamental Humanist, SFH. Much is made of the term Christian Fundamentalist, as if that is a bad thing. We use the term conversely,, to demonstrate that a lot for people are fundamental about thier beliefs, even AtheistsSo I'm happy with all of your recommendation, perhaps except the titleDawn Bertot